Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- I am not allowed
- Nazri talking through his hat!
- UUCA ruling a great legal milestone
- Ultimatum from the Rakyat to Barisan Nasional: Call Snap Polls before Electoral Reforms and be ...
- Has Muhyiddin performed a “coup” against Najib and other non-UMNO Cabinet Ministers
- We oppose the ban on Seksualiti Merdeka
- Dr M, before you look East, you should have looked after your backside first! Part #2
| Posted: 03 Nov 2011 09:30 PM PDT My existence is not allowed. Somehow, the person that I am - and I have to assume, the person that we all are for people the likes of me - have been reduced to no more than a threat. Somehow, I am a threat to a religion I do not practice, a threat to a nation I have no intention of harming, a threat to a culture I participate in and therefore shape. I am to be dealt with by the strong arm of the law, in the harshest of terms because I am not allowed. By Leroy Luar In response to the atrocity that has befallen my friends in Seksualiti Merdeka, I present this story of what happens to a dream deferred.
I mean, look at these people. They are wildly talented and rightfully recognised for their immense contributions to the annals of Southeast Asian literature. I dreamed of someday joining the pantheon of these gods, share the same airspace with them. In wanted to be just like them. No 'scientific experiments' in space, I dreamed of being the read deal. In short, I wanted to be a great Malaysian, recognised for verifiable excellence in my chosen field of expertise. Dreams will remain just that if no effort was put into the making of those dreams into reality. We've been told as much since the very first day we stepped foot into school. "Apakah cita-cita anda?" (What is your ambition?) became an all but consuming obsession in the matter of our nurturing. Naturally, things were no different for me. Like everyone else with a dream, I put time into honing my skills in narrative crafting. Practice makes perfect they said and I was determined to make things fall into place. A couple of years ago, I won a micro-fiction writing competition alongside a group of other talented writers. What may look like a small achievement to others was to me the pebble that may be responsible for bringing down a mountain. Earlier this year, I made the shortlist in the 2011 Commonwealth Short Story Competition; the only Malaysian in this year's shortlist and the first in five years to receive this privilege. When told of the news, I thought to myself 'Greatness is possible, I am not untalented." However, as of several hours ago, I am no longer master of these dreams of greatness. Greatness, it appears, is not possible. Not for me and for people the likes of me anyway. To put it simply, I am not allowed. I attempt to refine this statement: greatness is not that which I am not allowed to achieve, it is I - the person this pronoun refers to - that is not allowed. My existence is not allowed. Somehow, the person that I am - and I have to assume, the person that we all are for people the likes of me - have been reduced to no more than a threat. Somehow, I am a threat to a religion I do not practice, a threat to a nation I have no intention of harming, a threat to a culture I participate in and therefore shape. I am to be dealt with by the strong arm of the law, in the harshest of terms because I am not allowed. |
| Nazri talking through his hat! Posted: 03 Nov 2011 09:22 PM PDT It is extremely disturbing that the Minister for Law has shown scant respect for the judicial process by not taking the Court decision seriously. His dismissive remarks mock our judiciary and he himself comes across as a bumbling clown. By P. Ramakrishnan, President Aliran Nazri has given expression to the saying, "Talking through the hat!" That was what he was doing when he rather foolishly commented on the majority decision of the Court of Appeal which ruled in a landmark case that Section 15(5)(a) of the Universities and University Colleges Act was unconstitutional. In spite of the Court of Appeal's ruling, for the Minister of Law to insist that "it does not invalidate the Act" and to dismiss the Court's decision as "an opinion in passing" is appalling and shocking, exposing his alarming ignorance of the judicial process. Section 15(5)(a) has been invalidated as unconstitutional by the Court of Appeal ruling – which means that the provisions of that section are no longer applicable and cannot be enforced. That section, as a result of the Court's decision, is void and invalid. It is a binding decision and cannot be dismissed merely as "an opinion of the Court" without any consequence. Until and unless the Federal Court overturns or sets aside this ruling – thus upholding the High Court decision – no power on earth professing the democratic tradition can ignore this decision. It is as simple as that! It is extremely disturbing that the Minister for Law has shown scant respect for the judicial process by not taking the Court decision seriously. His dismissive remarks mock our judiciary and he himself comes across as a bumbling clown. "This is law, passed by us as lawmakers. There must be separation of powers," he thundered. If he respects the separation of powers, then he must not poke his nose where it does not belong! The judiciary has an inherent independent authority conferred by the Federal Constitution to "act without fear or favour (and) discharge their grave responsibility of pronouncing judgment on the validity of executive and legislative acts and on the meaning of any provision of the federal and state constitutions …" as clearly expounded by the late Tun Mohamed Suffian. According to Tun Suffian, Courts have the power to pronounce on the validity of legislative acts and to interpret the Constitution. When great minds have given their considered opinion, it is futile to split hairs. Perhaps Nazri, as he is prone to be so vocal, can help us in clarifying what is deemed as a contradiction. Is there a contradiction in the UUCA in that it doesn't seem to be applicable to all the university students? Why is it that the UUCA is only applicable to students of local universities? Why are students of overseas universities exempted from this Act? And the more pertinent question is: Why do almost all nations espousing democratic traditions refrain from subjecting their university students to such restrictions as spelt out in our UCCA? How is it that Umno Club members comprising overseas students are permitted to attend the Umno General Assembly regularly? Aren't they also violating the provisions of this Act which state no student shall express or do anything which may reasonably be construed as expressing support or sympathy with or opposition to any political party in or outside Malaysia? These Umno Club members openly express their support for Umno and by doing so, don't they fall foul of this Act? Or is it a case of selective application? Now that the Court had ruled, these Umno Club members henceforth can legitimately attend Umno General Assemblies, something that was not right previously. |
| UUCA ruling a great legal milestone Posted: 03 Nov 2011 09:16 PM PDT
For decades now, our freedom of thought and speech has been curtailed so much that many Malaysians are suffering from the disease of blindly obeying and mindlessly believing what certain leaders are telling them. Isn't it any wonder that not many people are daring enough to oppose certain mental manipulations by leaders, kowtowing and nodding their heads as if they are in a deep state of hypnosis? By Daniel John Jambun I cannot help feeling extremely elated that last Monday by a three-judge panel made a ruling that a provision in the Universities and University Colleges Act (UUCA) 1971 which restricts students from expressing in support of, or opposing any political party, is unconstitutional. This is history in the making, to say the least!
I also feel that the remarks by one of the three-man panel of judges, Datuk Mohd Hishamuddin Mohd Yunus Yunus, are worth repeating here, and even be carved onto stone for future generations to read and excite over, as much as today's generations still gloat over the Magna Carta (the Great Charter) which was presented to King John of England by a group of his subjects, the feudal barons, in 1215, with the warning that if the king refused the charter, they would depose him. The Magna Carta was later passed into law to limit the power of the King.
Hishamuddin stated unequivocally that Section 15(5)(a) of the UUCA was irrational as it impeded "the healthy development of the critical mind and original thoughts of students, the objective of which higher education institutions should strive to achieve. Universities should be the breeding ground of reformers and thinkers, and not institutions to produce students trained as robots. Clearly the provision is not only counter-productive but repressive in nature. Freedom of expression was one of the most fundamental rights that individuals enjoy and that right was also recognized in numerous human rights documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is fundamental to the existence of democracy and the respect of human dignity. Freedom of speech is accorded pre-eminent status in the constitutions of many countries…"
How should the country's ruling political leaders react to this ruling by the nation's court of appeal? If any member of the political elite decides to appeal the ruling, if that is possible under the law, such an appellant would have to answer to Hishamuddin's rationales that he was "at a loss to understand in what manners a student, who expresses support for, or opposition against, a political party could harm or bring about an adverse effect on public order or public morality. Are not political parties legal entities carrying out legitimate political activities? Most university students were of the age of maturity where they could enter into contracts, sue and be sued, can marry and become parents and undertake parental responsibilities, vote in general elections if they were 21 years of age. Yet lies herein the irony that they were told that legally they cannot say anything that can be construed as supporting or opposing a political party."
I would also add that if we open and operate many universities with hundreds and millions of ringgits to educate our young people, why tell them they are not, will never be, intelligent enough to make any judgment about what's right and wrong as long as they are students and scholars? How will they write short analyses and theses in which they are required to make mature evaluation of political and national governance issues as causes, and connect these evaluations to socio-economic consequences? Are university students supposed to refrain from making the right analyses for fear that they would be going against Section 15(5)(a) of the UUCA? What kind of thesis would it be that is biased and dishonest, and what kind of university graduate would it be who can't even tell what's right and what's wrong because the government had told him he couldn't support or oppose any political thinking? How ridiculous can a law be!
I have thought all this while that we are supposed to have universities to develop the country through the creation of generations of intellectuals who will take over the country, not a bunch of graduates who fear the government and when they become leaders will also make the same silly rules to gag future students. I believe that if we succeed in spending millions upon millions of ringgits to produce puppets and robots, our country will simply go down the drain, like what is already happening to us now! For decades now, our freedom of thought and speech has been curtailed so much that many Malaysians are suffering from the disease of blindly obeying and mindlessly believing what certain leaders are telling them. Isn't it any wonder that not many people are daring enough to oppose certain mental manipulations by leaders, kowtowing and nodding their heads as if they are in a deep state of hypnosis? Since their time in primary schools, they have been brainwashed, through the Ministry of (Dis)Information, that the government is right all the time, and that the people's duty is just to believe and obey. And worst, we are still being made to believe that the opposition is lying, day-dreaming, making empty promises they can't keep, can't do anything to help the people, just a bunch of noise makers and irritants, even deluded and evil leaders who will cause chaos and disasters if they take over the government! But are the people frightened of the opposition? Hardly, judging from the recent Sarawak general election and the 2008 political tsunami!
We can pose more and more question on this and will only make this anti-intellectual provision more and more ridiculous. What we need to realize is that, all this while the institutions of higher learning are places where students and professors are muted and curtailed from performing their duties to produce generations of critical, creative, innovative and pro-active leaders in all spheres of national activities. Section 15(5)(a) was actually included in the UUCA because the government feared, and still do fear, students from becoming too smart and eventually lean towards the opposition. But they forget that truth can't be hidden forever, and university students will eventually know who is actually lying to them. With or without Section 15(5)(a), they will still voice out their feelings one way or another, and this is more dangerous to the government because they will be working undercover and discreetly.
The BN should understand that they are borrowing time from the next generation of leaders, which are the present students. The future belongs to the new generation, not to the present ruling elites. As I see it, the present leaders are succeeding very well in destroying the future, and the future leaders will have a very hard time trying to repair a lot of damages which are being done and will be passed on to them. If the BN is sincere about wanting to do the right thing, it would now let students participate fully in the political process, to say what they want to say. The future is already their responsibility NOW, not later! Khalil Gibran was right when he wrote of children: "...they have their own thoughts. You may house their bodies but not their souls; For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams." If you try to shut them up, they will one day shut you up. It's as simple as that! |
| Ultimatum from the Rakyat to Barisan Nasional: Call Snap Polls before Electoral Reforms and be ... Posted: 03 Nov 2011 06:06 PM PDT
The latest information, from reliable insider sources, is that, upon his return to Malaysia on 6th November, 2011, Najib will, on 11th November, 2011, seek and obtain His Majesty's consent to the dissolution of Parliament whereafter, the Election Commission will fix 1st December, 2011 as the date for nomination of candidates and 10th December, 2011 as polling day. The world has, in recent times, witnessed People Power triumph over dictatorships in several nations. In Malaysia, on 9th July, 2011, thousands descended on to the streets of Kuala Lumpur to demand reforms to our nations electoral process, long fraught with irregularities that render the citizens participation in governance illusory. Yet, even as the government led by Dato Seri Najib Tun Abdul Razak established a Parliamentary Select Committee to look into the matter of reforms to the electoral process, public statements are constantly issued by members of the government, including the Prime Minister himself, that the 13th general election is imminent. The latest information, from reliable insider sources, is that, upon his return to Malaysia on 6th November, 2011, Najib will, on 11th November, 2011, seek and obtain His Majesty's consent to the dissolution of Parliament whereafter, the Election Commission will fix 1st December, 2011 as the date for nomination of candidates and 10th December, 2011 as polling day. On behalf of the rakyat, political, non-governmental orgnanisation and civil society leaders will hold a press conference to issue a final ultimatum to Najib, UMNO and Barisan Nasional as to the consequences they must be prepared to face if they proceed to call for snap polls before our electoral process is reformed. Details of the press conference are as follows : Date : 5th November, 2011 Time : 2.30pm Venue : Kuala Lumpur & Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall We would appreciate if you could send your journalist to cover the event. For clarification, please contact the following numbers : (1) +6012-2070534 (2) +6017-6688404
|
| Has Muhyiddin performed a “coup” against Najib and other non-UMNO Cabinet Ministers Posted: 03 Nov 2011 04:33 PM PDT Has the Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin done a "coup" against the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak and other non-UMNO Cabinet Ministers and parties including MCA, MIC and Gerakan in unilaterally and arbitrarily without Cabinet authority declaring as "final" the decision to discontinue the PPSMI policy on the teaching of mathematics and science in English and slamming shut the door of a review? The Prime Minister had promised before the Sarawak polls in April this year that the government would consider using dual languages as the medium of instruction for mathematics and science in schools, and it is precisely because of such an undertaking that the leaders/Ministers from non-UMNO Barisan Nasional parties have come out publicly in support of the principle that parents should be given the option of deciding on continuing with PPSMI in selected schools. Although Muhyiddin had dismissed calls from the top MCA and MIC leadership that the government allow schools the option to retain PPSMI, declaring that representatives from both MCA and MIC (which would include Gerakan) in the Cabinet had agreed to its abolition in 2009, the Deputy Prime Minister should explain why he had singly, uniaterally and arbitrarily overriden the powers of the Cabinet to review the 2009 decision - and whether Muhyiddin had the full approval and agreement of Najib to make such a "final" decision on PPSMI when the Prime Minister is away from the country? In any event, if the non-UMNO Cabinet Ministers and parties, such as MCA, MIC, Gerakan and the Sarawak and Sabah Barisan Nasional parties, want to have a full and thorough review of the Cabinet's 2009 decision on PPSMI so as to allow parents the option to continue with the PPSMI in certain schools, who is Muhyiddin to singly, unilaterally and arbitrarily bar them from doing so? Has the Deputy Prime Minister any such powers to subject the non-UMNO BN Ministers to such control when even the Prime Minister would not have such powers? Lim Kit Siang
|
| We oppose the ban on Seksualiti Merdeka Posted: 03 Nov 2011 12:09 AM PDT Sisters in Islam Sisters in Islam (SIS) strongly disagrees with the police's blanket ban on Seksualiti Merdeka. We see this as yet another pattern of censorship and banning of freedom of expression, association and the free circulation of ideas in Malaysia. We are also concerned at how the ban is going to be enforced by the police force. Was there, for example, a court order to ban the festival? How exactly do the police intend to follow through this "ban"? While we understand that there are Muslims opposed to ideas of respecting gender and sexual diversity, as a Muslim women's organisation, SIS disagrees with the methods used to stifle these ideas. We ourselves have been subjected to police reports simply for questioning syariah criminal procedures on women, and our publication discussing the impact of religious extremism on Muslim women was once banned by the authorities. We regret that Seksualiti Merdeka has fallen prey to the same kind of state intimidation and harassment. We call on fellow Muslims to exercise compassion and wisdom in dealing with the issues brought up by Seksualiti Merdeka. We also call on the authorities to ensure the safety and security of all those involved in this, especially Seksualiti Merdeka's organisers, volunteers and supporters.
|
| Dr M, before you look East, you should have looked after your backside first! Part #2 Posted: 03 Nov 2011 12:01 AM PDT Todak Dear Tuan IkwanZ, Without any malice to you, please allow me to defend my statements on which you have commented in my article Dr M, before you look East, you should have looked after your backside first! Yes, if you were PM in the 80s and if you had sweet old buddy like Singaporean Rin who probably showed up with Japanese businessman Kumei, I have no doubt whatsoever that you would have done precisely like Mahathir. I don't know if you are a businessman, but Mahathir never was, apart from selling pisang goreng and nasi lemak during his school-going days (so he claimed, to augment his pocket money). So when a Chinaman and a Japanese Sōgō shōsha man came to "advise" him on advancing his "Look East" policy, Mahathir naturally took that as Gospel truth, could not go wrong. The only time Mahathir tried his hand on big time business (before he became a PM) was when he was Minister of Trade and Industry (MCA Datuk Lew Sip Hon as his deputy). Ill-advised by con-master Marc Rich, Mahathir tried to corner the tin market on the LME (London Metal Exchange). While he got his fingers badly burned, Malaysia lost something like a hefty RM800 million when the American GSA released physical tin stock and the tin price collapsed. Mahathir thought he had learned his lesson not to trust any Westerner the like of Marc Rich (a Jew). So with Rin and Kumei, he regained self confidence especially then as PM, the Lord of all he surveyed. If his buddies told him Mitsubishi, then it was Mitsubishi, nothing else. That was how the choice of techno partner was made for our national car, never through a process of due diligence and evaluation of all possible qualified candidates. However, I must agree with you that Mitsubishi is a huge conglomerate with interests in Oil & Gas, Heavy Industries, Banking, etc, and Mahathir's visit to all these works must have greatly impressed him. But for the automobile industry, Toyota leads in sales volume and technology (Lexus is hard to beat) and Honda in design (the Pininfarina of the East). About a decade ago, Mitsubishi along with Nissan Motors almost collapsed financially. Had it not been for the strength and financial backing of Big Brother diversified Mitsubishi Group, it would have succumbed to a same fate like Nissan which was taken over by Renault of France. Applying the Malaysian analogy, Sime Bank disappeared, but Sime Darby is still going strong. So now, Tuan IkhwanZ, I hope you will agree with me just sedikit sahaja that Mitsubishi was a wrong choice while our other ASEAN member, Thailand got their acts right, Toyota and Honda. If Mahathir had chosen Toyota, today Proton does not need to scout the world for a partner; Volkswagen would come a-begging to us. Now, Tuan IkhwanZ, let us take a slow boat to China. First, I must clear with you that I do not indulge in racial bias and religious sentiments. We have to recognize facts for what they are, devoid of racial and religious paintwork. You said, "China back then (in the 80s + 90s) was nothing; it was when China was granted WTO membership in 2001 that the country started flourishing. So prior to that, which country would you want to focus on for trade? Certainly not China." These were your words, but unfortunately, factually wrong again. A little man by the name of Deng Xiao Peng who was not even the President or Prime Minister of Communist China, was the person who pulled the strings of the Chinese Government and drew open "The Bamboo Curtain" to the world in the 2nd half of decade 1970s. The Sleeping Dragon then awakened, and started to move at great leaps forward. The first western company to invest in China was Swiss lift manufacturer, Schindler. Today Schindler's lift and elevators are seen all over China, Hong Kong and Asia, and exported back to Europe. Volkswagen would have been insolvent had it not for their new market in China. Nowadays FDIs poured into China, with success upon success of all who branched into China. While writing this piece, I just saw on CNN that China's 1st unmanned spaceship has docked with its own space station today, one more up for China. The WTO had no choice, but to hand the membership status to China on a silver plate in 2001. At any rate, the WTO membership and the US "most favored nation" status are nothing more than political apparatus to strangle countries whose ideology is not in line with theirs. The "most favored nation" crap was a joke if you ask me. And finally, Tuan IkhwanZ, without being racial, let me tell you that all the Chinese around the world without exception, are by nature, capitalists. They adopted and welcomed the Communist system because the Nationalist Chinese Government was corrupted beyond repair, so they looked to Karl Marx and Lenin for change. Even today, Communist membership within China account for less than 10% of the population (80 million members only). Therefore, it boils down to one simple characteristic of the Chinese race. Everywhere you go, you'll find Chinese only interested in business, trade and money which give them survival. Politics is least in their mind; to the Chinese any body can rule over them but that body must allow them free and fair business opportunities. They only join the voice of descent if Government policies affect their business adversely. Those in good stead like Francis Yeoh, Tan Kay Hock, Vincent Tan, Lee Kim Yew, etc., etc don't make noise, for reasons you should know. Can we do something here in Malaysia for the ethnic Chinese Malaysians? By now, you may be wondering what ethnic race I belong to. I am not telling, but I suggest you refer to the legendary tale of "Singapura Dilanggar Todak", that may give you a clue.
|
| You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan